From Stalinism to the Prague Spring—Education in Complicated Times

Abstract

This chapter presents the history of Czechoslovakia from the end of World War II to the end of the 1960s. The postwar years were associated with hopes for a free life and the general development of the country. These hopes were extinguished in 1948 when the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia (Komunistická strana Československa, KSČ) fully assumed power and started building a socialist (totalitarian) state and a satellite of the Soviet Union. The next part of the chapter describes Czechoslovakia in the 1960s when the regime relaxed and changes took place in many aspects of life. The reforms culminated in the ‘Prague Spring’, which ended with the invasion of the Warsaw Pact troops in 1968.

In the field of education and in the school system, the ‘Sovietization’ of education occurred in the 1950s, which resulted in many deformations and unprepared reforms aimed at bringing the school system closer to that of the Soviet Union. The chapter describes laws as well as ideological influences in the school system, including the specific impacts of the interventions into the school system and into the lives of teachers and students. In the 1960s, teachers regained more freedom for their work. This period was brought to an end after 1968, when staffing purges took place in schools and the onset of normalization in schools was once again accompanied by ideological pressure.

1 The Forms of Postwar Reconstruction (1945–1953)

The restored Czechoslovak Republic differed significantly from the 1918–1938 Republic in terms of political, economic, and national direction.¹ At the beginning of April 1945, the government published the Košice government programme,² which brought significant changes to the Czechoslovak political structure. Political competition now took place within the closed system of the National Front, which included four political parties in the Czech lands (the Communist, National Socialist, Social Democratic, and People’s parties) and two in Slovakia (the Democratic and Communist parties). The renewal of the Agrarian Party, the strongest political entity in interwar Czechoslovakia, was not allowed.³ The Košice government programme determined the foreign political and military orientation of Czechoslovakia towards the Soviet Union (also referred to as the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, abbreviated USSR), and it included the punishment of collaborators and traitors from the period of Nazi occupation and the confiscation of German and Hungarian property. National committees (Národní výbory) were to be the new authorities of state power. The programme presumed equal rights for Czechs and Slovaks. At that time, Czechoslovakia was led by the government of the ‘National Front of Czechs and Slovaks’ with social democrat Zdeněk Fierlinger as the prime minister. The Communists assumed important positions in this government, gaining, for example, the Ministries of the Interior, Agriculture, and Information.

Until the convention of the Provisional National Assembly on 28 October 1945, legislative activity in Czechoslovakia was carried out through Presidential Decrees. On the basis of these decrees and other measures, the nationalization of banks, insurance companies, key industries, and other industrial plants with more than five hundred employees took place in October 1945. In addition to the nationalized sector, the private sector and artisanal small-scale production continued to function in the Czechoslovak economy. The confiscation of land owned by Germans, Hungarians, and collaborators, which was then allocated to interested parties at a low price, represented a major change in ownership and social structure of the postwar republic.⁴

After World War II, the national composition of Czechoslovakia changed significantly. The displacement of the German population, which took place mainly between 1945 and 1947, was the biggest intervention. Immediately after the end of the war, a number of excesses and crimes were committed against the German population during the ‘wild’ displacement before August 1945. An organized displacement of the German population from the Czechoslovak Republic, which was approved by the Allied Powers at the Potsdam Conference in August 1945, was then carried out, mainly in 1946.

The experience of the German occupation, the disillusionment with the ‘Munich betrayal’ of the Western Allies (Kocian, 2018), and the experience of the Great Depression and the reflection on the need to rebuild the republic all led to a significant part of the republic’s population having increased sympathies for the Soviet Union and the KSČ. The KSČ was able to strongly benefit particularly from anti-German sentiments in its ideology.⁵

The Communist Party won the parliamentary elections in 1946 and seized absolute power in the state in February 1948. For Czechoslovakia, the events of February 1948 marked the assumption of totalitarian power by the KSČ, or rather by its leadership. After February 1948, there was a large-scale purge in the state apparatus, the economy, social organizations, science, culture, and the school system. At that time, the pluralist parliamentary system became a de facto formality.

The National Assembly passed laws that had previously been prepared and approved by the Communist leadership. The judicial system ceased to function as an independent branch of state power and the mass media became instruments of propaganda.

There were also major changes in the field of culture oriented almost exclusively towards the socialist culture and the programme of ‘socialist realism’ in art. The culture was dominated by a single ideology: dogmatically understood Marxism-Leninism. Everything that contradicted this orientation had to be removed. Hitherto independent artistic and cultural associations were dissolved and centralized institutions were created in their place. Cultural ties with Western countries were almost completely severed, and the organization of Czechoslovak science was rebuilt according to the USSR model. Many characters from Czechoslovak science and culture were silenced or imprisoned for many years, or they emigrated.

Czechoslovakia’s foreign and domestic policy became totally dependent on the USSR. Czechoslovakia became a solid part of the Soviet power bloc in Central and Eastern Europe. It was a member of both the economic Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (established in 1949) and the military-political Warsaw Pact (established in 1955). Between 1949 and 1956, advisers sent from the USSR intervened directly or indirectly in nearly all areas of Czechoslovak society.

The economic development after February 1948 was characterized by the almost complete destruction of the private sector. The management of the economy was carried out from a single centre and according to a central plan, with political objectives usually taking precedence over economic ones. The economy was managed by a vast bureaucratic apparatus led by the State Planning Office and by means of five-year economic plans, the first of which was launched in 1949.

Particular emphasis was placed on the development of heavy industry, based mainly on the military needs of the entire Soviet bloc. The strong focus on heavy engineering resulted in a lagging behind of the consumer industry and services, and it had an adverse effect on the living standards of the population and on the environment.

After February 1948, a land reform was carried out that limited land ownership to 50 ha per individual and mandated the ‘compulsory sale’ of lands above this limit. This can be seen as a special form of expropriation in return for compensation, although compensation was often not provided. Soon after the communist assumption of power, preparations for the collectivization of agriculture were also made, once again following the Soviet model.⁶ In February 1949, the Act on Unified Agricultural Cooperatives (Jednotná zemědělská družstva, JZD) was adopted, launching the first wave of collectivization. The next phase of this early 1950s campaign was accompanied by harsh political and economic pressure on farmers, who were to be forced to join the JZDs. Particularly the larger owners of farmland, who constituted the main obstacle to collectivization according to the communist regime, were the targets of often brutal judicial and extra-judicial persecution.

Although the communist assumption of absolute power in Czechoslovakia in February 1948 was relatively smooth, forces remained in Czechoslovak society that rejected the transition to the totalitarian system of a single political party. A wave of repressions and other adverse circumstances prevented the emergence of more widespread anti-communist resistance in Czechoslovakia. Individual underground groups were usually quickly discovered by the State Security. With the aim of enforcing absolute control over society, the consolidation of the communist regime in Czechoslovakia was accompanied by widespread persecution of its real and perceived and potential opponents. Especially in the period from 1948 to 1953, these repressions were particularly brutal and affected a large number of people. Former high-ranking officials of non-communist political parties were victims of political trials. The Catholic Church, especially high-ranking church dignitaries, religious orders, and Catholic intellectuals were the target of repressions (this topic is discussed in more detail later in this chapter).

2 Stabilization of the Communist Regime and the Period of Hope (1953–1968)

The relaxation of conditions in the USSR after Stalin’s death in 1953 led to partial changes in Czechoslovakia as well. In June 1953, Czechoslovakia underwent a monetary reform, which brought about an exchange of cash and deposits in the ratio from 5:1 to 50:1; at the same time, rationing⁷ was terminated and uniform retail prices were introduced. For the majority of the population, these measures meant an increase in living costs and a substantial devaluation of savings. The monetary reform fundamentally shook the credibility of the KSČ government, even among those social groups that had supported it. That is to say, even the relatively well-paid class of workers and miners lost a considerable part of their savings. In connection with this, manifestations of mass discontent were seen in many locations (Šlouf, 2021).

As a result of these events and the pressure from the new leaders of the USSR, the KSČ leadership announced a ‘new course’ in September 1953. In its assessment of the previous development, KSČ admitted certain mistakes and shortcomings in the application of its policies; the economy became more focused on the production of consumer goods and there were reductions in retail prices, salary increases, and adjustments in agricultural policy. There was also some relaxation of the system of repressions.

Adoption of the new socialist constitution, approved by the National Assembly in July 1960, was supposed to be a formal confirmation of the strength of the communist regime and the irreversible changes in Czechoslovakia. This constitution contained an article on the ‘leading role of the Communist Party in the society’. It also effectively eliminated the powers of the Slovak autonomous authorities. A new name for the state was adopted: Czechoslovak Socialist Republic (Československá socialistická republika, hereinafter also CSSR). The amnesties of most political prisoners in 1960 and 1962 were a sign of positive development, but only a few of them were rehabilitated in the 1960s.

The economy remained the weakness of the regime. The system of a centrally planned economy, based primarily on the development of heavy industry, allowed for neither a flexible response to the needs of the population nor an introduction of the necessary technological changes. Industrial products were losing the ability to compete on foreign markets and the national income and per capita income were decreasing.

Under these circumstances, the KSČ leadership had to allow a discussion about the future direction of the Czechoslovak economy, the basic problem of which was determined to be an inefficient management system. Reformist economists developed a project of economic reform that would combine socialist planning with the functioning of market mechanisms. After 1965, the implementation of this reform encountered serious obstacles. It became increasingly apparent that its consistent implementation would only be possible with a simultaneous democratization of the political system.

In the 1960s, Czechoslovak society underwent a series of changes. The power monopoly of the KSČ remained, but the way it was exercised shifted. The role of the National Assembly and the authorities of the state administration grew. The harshness of the Criminal Act was toned down and the first rehabilitation of victims from the 1950s took place, although these mostly only concerned prominent Communist Party functionaries. A new generation that was less connected to the past practices of the totalitarian regime and that was more open to other approaches and ideas entered political and economic life. Czechoslovak science and culture were awakening, and the interrupted contacts with the West began to be re-established. The 1958 World Exhibition in Brussels was a great success for Czechoslovakia.⁸

Despite the disapproval of party ideologues, other elements of the Western youth lifestyle infiltrated Czechoslovakia as well. More extensive opportunities for travelling to the West allowed many young people to compare the realities of life, which often led to a deepening of their critical attitudes. A number of magazines and student societies, which became open platforms for the exchange of ideas, were established at universities.

Czechoslovak culture became an important phenomenon of the 1960s. It manifested the strong influence of a new generation of artists who were no longer willing to be bound by the schemes of ‘socialist realism’ and demanded and practically exercised creative freedom.

Remarkable works were produced in Czechoslovak cinema at this time. Representatives of the ‘Czechoslovak New Wave’ included directors such as Miloš Forman and Jiří Menzel.

Czech and Slovak literature experienced a very busy period. The works of authors who had written books even before World War II, including Jaroslav Seifert, who won the Nobel Prize for literature (in 1984), as well as the works of the younger literary generation, such as Josef Škvorecký and Milan Kundera, were popular with readers. The writers probably most clearly perceived the strong contrast between the established relatively free artistic space and the little-changing political system.

3 Prague Spring 1968

The desire for change in Czechoslovak society resulted in widespread criticism of the KSČ leadership. A reformist wing gradually formed within the Communist Party. This wing sought economic reform and democratization of society, but under the leadership and control of the KSČ. Zdeněk Mlynář, Ota Šik, and Alexander Dubček were among the leaders of this reformist trend in the KSČ.

In January 1968, Antonín Novotný was dismissed from the position of First Secretary of the Central Committee of the KSČ, and the previous First Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Slovakia, Alexander Dubček, was elected in his place.

The media began to report without censorship and events originally limited to the KSČ leadership acquired a society-wide dimension. The barriers that had prevented discussion about the pressing problems of the past and present also fell. The legacy of democratic traditions was revived. Civil society was awakening. Representatives of churches came forward with demands for the creation of a space for a free religious life and for a fair organization of relations with the state. In Slovakia, attention was focused on the assertion of its equal status within the Czechoslovak state, which was achieved in October 1968 when the law on federation was adopted.

The Soviet leadership, headed by Leonid Brezhnev, the supreme leader of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, watched the reform process in Czechoslovakia with growing unease. It feared that the weakening of the totalitarian political system in the CSSR would lead to similar developments in other states of the Soviet power bloc and ultimately threaten the Soviet Union’s control over Central and Eastern Europe. The Soviet political concept—referred to as the Brezhnev Doctrine—according to which the ‘defense of socialism’ in one country was a common concern of all Warsaw Pact states, significantly limited the sovereignty of the individual members of the Soviet bloc. The fact that no Soviet troops were stationed in Czechoslovakia (unlike the other Warsaw Pact states) added to the anxiety of Soviet officials.

The escalation of Soviet pressure occurred during a meeting of the Czechoslovak and Soviet delegations at the turn of July and August 1968. Despite some partial concessions, the Czechoslovak leadership refused to radically change its political line, which was confirmed during the meeting of the delegations of Communist parties of the Soviet bloc in Bratislava at the beginning of August 1968. In this situation, the representatives of the USSR and of other Warsaw Pact states stopped relying on changing the situation in Czechoslovakia through ‘internal’ means and unambiguously focused on preparing their military intervention. This was legitimized by a request for help against the ‘counter-revolution’ in Czechoslovakia, signed by representatives of a conservative pro-Soviet group within the KSČ leadership. This ‘invitation letter’ was handed over to Soviet representatives during the Bratislava meeting.

On 20 August 1968, USSR troops and smaller units from Hungary, Poland, the German Democratic Republic, and Bulgaria crossed the border into Czechoslovakia. The Czechoslovak army, several times weaker and deployed mainly in the western part of the republic, did not resist in the hopeless military situation, followed the instructions of the President of the Republic, and let the invading forces capture the territory of the state.

A mass civil resistance of the Czechoslovak public against the invasion was organized by the media, which the interventionists failed to silence. Despite the non-violent nature of these protests, over 90 Czechoslovak citizens died and several hundred were injured in the first days after 21 August 1968 (Pauer, 1995).

The ‘Moscow Protocol’, which can be described as a unilateral dictate by the Soviet leadership, was crucial for the development of Czechoslovakia after August 1968. Czechoslovak representatives adopted the document after rather dramatic events, especially in response to threats from Soviet representatives about the possibility of escalation of the conflict into a civil war or the introduction of military administration in Czechoslovakia. This document contained commitments by the Czechoslovak party to stop the activities of ‘anti-socialist’ organizations, to establish control over the media, and to dismiss a number of functionaries unacceptable to the Soviet party.

The Moscow Protocol was the first to use the word ‘normalization’, which was later adopted to refer to the subsequent twenty-year period of Czechoslovakia’s development. In October 1968, the National Assembly passed a law on the residence of Soviet troops in the Czechoslovak territory.

In November 1968, university youth protested the emerging ‘normalization’, i.e. the restoration of the mechanisms of the totalitarian regime, with a three-day occupation strike. However, an atmosphere of disillusionment and resignation gradually began to permeate most Czechoslovak society.

4 Postwar School System—Between Two Totalitarian Systems

The postwar reconstruction and development of the school system followed the Košice government programme.⁹ The question of the future direction of Czechoslovakia was unambiguously connected to the Soviet Union. The cooperation concerned political and economic matters as well as cultural and educational ones. In the Košice government programme, the school system was the topic of the fifteenth chapter, which stated that schools would be purged of Nazi collaborators and that all textbooks published during the period of Nazi occupation would also be removed. All German and Hungarian universities were to be closed and a restoration of Czech universities was expected. The students who had been forbidden to study during the occupation were to be allowed to return to the Czech schools as soon as possible and to finish their education.

Removal of views critical of the Soviet Union from textbooks and the unambiguous preference for the Russian language within the hierarchy of foreign language teaching were typical features of the implementation of the Košice government programme and the early cooperation with the USSR in Czechoslovak primary schools (Fawn, 2000; Nevers, 2003; Vorlíček, 2004).

The Manifesto Congress/Assembly of Czech Teachers (Manifestační sjezd českého učitelstva), which took place in July 1945, was a significant event for the school system. Among other things, the congress reopened the discussion about unified schools, a very important topic that remained unresolved from the prewar period. Presidential Decree No. 132 of 27 October 1945 on Teacher Education, which introduced university education at pedagogical and other university faculties for teachers of all types and stages of schools (Presidential Decree, 1945) was another important milestone in the postwar history of the school system. On the basis of this decree, in 1946, universities established pedagogical faculties that combined both pedagogical and didactic preparation and professional preparation, i.e. the study of a given subject (e.g. mathematics, physical education, and Russian).

In addition, 1948 marked the beginning of what was, with only slight exaggeration, another new era for education. Relatively soon after the February 1948 coup d’état, a new Education Act, a significant milestone in the history of Czechoslovak school system, was adopted. The fact that it was adopted with virtually no say from the supporters of other approaches or concepts (i.e. those from the non-communist camp) in the process of drafting the 1948 Act can be considered a significant drawback. From another point of view, it was a standard that introduced a unified school system for the first time. The complicated system of elementary education (described in previous chapters) was eliminated. Therefore, every citizen was able to advance through the school system without any dead endspreventing progression to the next stage of the school system. At the same time, the right of all citizens to an education was guaranteed. The school system was nationalized, meaning the end of all private and alternative schools, and the 1948 Act included a limitation on the number of students in a class. Compulsory education was free. Some experts in the field of education saw a contradiction in this law in that it reflected traditions and modern trends but was strongly influenced by the approaches and principles of the emerging communist dictatorship, not giving much space to democratic school development (Walterová, 2004). The honorific ‘comrade teacher’ was introduced, and the terms socialist (later communist) school and education began to be used. The Communist Party gradually assumed a decisive role in the field of education and made decisions on practically all relevant events in the form of conclusions or resolutions put into practice through various (legislative) standards and regulations.

During this period, the KSČ completely uncritically imitated the school system of the Soviet Union without regard for the real needs of Czechoslovak society. Soviet methods and templates were promoted and introduced regardless of their applicability in Czechoslovak conditions. One example of this trend was the integration of schools into accomplishing political and economic tasks, which led to a change in the entire school system. The Lány action (Lánská akce)’ of 1949, which aimed at getting boys to choose mining jobs after leaving school, is another example.¹⁰ Alongside this, there was also the ‘village teachers’ movement’, within which the teachers were to support collectivization of agriculture; teachers were even expected to urge farmers to join the Unified Agricultural Cooperatives.

The creation of a completely atheist society based on the ideas of Marxism-Leninism was a goal of the KSČ (Madsen, 2014; Müller & Neundorf, 2012).¹¹ This meant a society in which religious faith had no justification, because, according to the socialist opinion of the time, religion represented the opium of the people and it was a sign of human decadence and backwardness (Balík & Hanuš, 2013). The KSČ faced a very difficult task, as 75% of its members reported belonging to a religion before 1948 and 90% of the KSČ voters were religious (Kaplan, 1990; Kaplan, 1993). To some extent, this situation affected the future relations between the Czechoslovak state and the individual churches and also predetermined the search for a means of everyday coexistence. After 1948, the communist leadership sought to integrate the individual churches into its power-political system, to limit their ties with foreign countries (especially the Vatican), and to create a national church community that would serve the regime’s goals (Cuhra, 1999; Kaplan, 2001).

To this end, the communist regime passed several ‘church laws’ in 1949.¹² In compliance, the State Office for Church Affairs and subordinate authorities at the regional and district levels were established.¹³ The new office was headed by a minister appointed by the president of the republic, and the branches at the regional and district levels were headed by church secretaries. The powers and all of the property of the individual churches and religious societies that operated in the territory of Czechoslovakia were transferred to this office (Cuhra, 1999).¹⁴ The office supervised the operation of these churches and it was responsible for developing standards in church and religious matters. The issuance of church laws was accompanied by a wave of persecutory crackdowns, and the communist government used the same tools as in the fight against political opponents of the regime. Male religious orders and the Greek Catholic Church were destroyed in a series of ecclesiastical show trials, many bishops and monks were removed or interned, and the church press, religious literature, and church ceremonies were restricted.

In everyday life, the public practice of religious faith became a reliable tool for attracting problems in life or even making it impossible to find a job in many professions. Teaching was among the professions that were inherently connected with atheism. The Communist Party continued the traditions of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, in which Czechoslovak teachers were the leading carriers of the idea of removing the influence of religion upon public and private life. This was also a reason for the relatively unproblematic takeover of Czechoslovak schools by the totalitarian regime after 1948 (Balík & Hanuš, 2013).

In the early 1950s, a change of opinion on the teaching of religion occurred. Religion was a compulsory subject until the 1952/1953 school year. The 1953 Decree of the Ministry of Education, Science and Arts brought a new regulation. It introduced the teaching of religion only as an optional subject in primary schools. Instruction was to take place only in schools; it was not allowed, for example, in rectories. Registration for the lessons was deliberately complicated by the fact that parents had to register their children using a special form at the beginning of each school year. When doing so, they were reminded by the school administration that the religion lessons were optional and voluntary. In some cases, school heads demanded that the parents sign the form in person in the school heads’ office. This provided them with some opportunity to pressure the parents to withdraw their request. Indeed, many teachers made personal commitments that no student from their class would sign up for religion lessons. Many school heads even hid the applications for religion lessons during the first days of school, claiming that they did not have them, or scheduled the lessons in the evening hours. The school heads’ motivation to enroll as few children as possible into the religion lessons was also due to external circumstances, not just inner communist beliefs. The number of children enrolled in religion lessons was a measure of the success or failure of atheization. This data was taken into consideration when school heads were evaluated by their superiors (Zounek, Šimáně, & Knotová, 2017c). A careful accounting of the students who attended religion lessons also served as a tool to monitor which families continued to live a religious life.

By 1954, the KSČ had managed to completely cripple all religious life in Czechoslovakia with its interventions. And it did so in such a way that by the mid-1950s, the Communist Party had ceased to see churches and religious societies as a serious danger. The situation was so secure for the party that there was no need to take further measures. This did not mean that the totalitarian regime dropped the issue from its consideration. From 1953 until the end of the communist regime in 1989, religion lessons never again appeared in the curricula of primary schools, and they were controlled only by special regulations of the State Office for Church Affairs or the Ministry of Education. In that way, the school system of communist Czechoslovakia had achieved a complete secularization after 1953.

5 A Period of Chaotic Changes in the 1950s

The Education Act of 1953 (Act No. 31/1953 Coll.) can literally be considered a disaster for the development of Czechoslovak education. It was preceded by a rather harsh and ideological criticism of schools as well as of the prewar (democratic) developments in pedagogy. The 1953 Act is an example of the uncritical approximation of Czechoslovak school system to the school system of the Soviet Union—the ‘Sovietization’ of the school system (Crampton, 1997; Kaplan & Paleček, 2008; Vorlíček, 2004). The 1953 Act lacked a professional basis and even interrupted the previous development by abolishing the 1948 Act that had been in force for barely 5 years. The 1953 Act created eleven-year secondary schools that provided basic general education in the first 8 years and offered higher general education in the last 3 years that prepared students primarily for university studies. In this way, compulsory schooling was shortened to 8 years and grammar schools were completely eliminated.

Overburdening of students was one of the consequences of this ‘reform’, as the shortening of compulsory schooling was not accompanied by an adequate reduction in the content of the curriculum. Textbooks suffered from serious didactic shortcomings and the ideological infiltration of the content was very high. Polytechnic education¹⁵ was favoured at the expense of humanities, etc. One of the effects of the 1953 Act was an increased percentage of students who failed some subjects or did not even complete the first 8 years of the secondary school. This situation was criticized by many experts, including the pro-regime ones. Positive aspects of the 1953 Act included the further expansion of the school network and the increased chances of obtaining a secondary education. At the same time, the number of classes increased significantly and the average number of students per teacher or class in primary schools decreased, and these ratios continued to decrease over the following years (Jelínková & Smolka, 1989).

There were rather fundamental changes in the education of primary school teachers. In 1953, pedagogical faculties were dissolved just 7 years after their establishment. Four-year pedagogical grammar schools were established at which teachers at kindergartens and the national schools (first stage of primary schools) began to be educated. This was a step back to the situation from the interwar period (for more see e.g. Šimáně 2014, 2010), as the education of some teachers returned to a mere secondary school level.

The efforts to allow more students to study was one of the proclaimed reasons for this transformation. More importantly, the reform of teacher education was not based on justified expert foundations; it was driven by a series of ill-considered (and unprepared) regulations and administrative interventions that resulted in the gradual decline in the level of teacher education. The 1953 Act designated three new types of schools for teacher education: four-year secondary pedagogical schools, two-year pedagogical colleges, and four-year pedagogical universities.¹⁶

The 1953 Act created a rather unclear and complex system of teacher education and the duration of pedagogical studies was shortened at the two-year pedagogical colleges¹⁷: many graduates completed their studies at the young age of 19. The length of studies at this type of school was shortened and the content was also mechanically reduced, offering a concrete example of the reduction in the quality of teacher education.

Narrators’ recollections bring a lesser-known problem to light. One of the teachers we spoke with in our previous research stated: ‘Well, and I also had the education for one to five [1st to 5th grade], but because there were few qualified teachers at that time, they put me right to the second stage and I could choose. So I taught various subjects, but I chose mathematics and art’ (Zounek et al., 2016, p. 144). Although this teacher was not qualified to teach subjects at the second stage of the school, she was permitted to choose any subject and teach it without a proper education. This teacher’s recollection can be seen as an example of what may have negatively affected the quality of teaching in the 1950s. Teaching by unqualified teachers went hand in hand with the shortage of teachers. In the context of the ill-considered and chaotic changes in the 1950s, it is clear that the chosen (unprofessional) solutions and the actual course of changes only contributed to recurring problems. Thus, the measures taken often had no effect, as the subsequent rapid succession of changes incidentally suggests (Zounek et al., 2016).

In 1959, as a part of another reform, four-year pedagogical institutes were established in all regions of Czechoslovakia, while the previous types of pedagogical schools were dissolved. After only 2 years of operation of these institutes, the lack of clarity of the entire concept became apparent. The problems lay primarily in the unpolished content of the studies and the unclear legal status of these schools. The pedagogical institutes were dissolved 1964, after about 5 years of existence. Most of the institutes were converted into pedagogical faculties with four-year study programmes. Those that were located in regional towns were incorporated into the local university affiliations.

In the university education, the 1950 Act can be described as a turning point, as it was the first of its kind in Czechoslovak history (some legislative regulations focused on university education had been in force for 50 years or more, i.e. since the time of the Habsburg monarchy). But the 1950 Act brought fundamental changes to the life of universities. The centralization of administration was strengthened significantly, and the traditional autonomy of universities was abolished completely. The internal organization also underwent changes, as the law was ‘inspired’ in many aspects by the Soviet model. It should be noted that changes at universities had been taking place since 1948, with the ‘purge of public and political life of the enemies of the people’s democratic establishment and reaction’. To put it simply, democratically minded teachers and students as well as opponents of the regime had to leave the faculties or universities. However, it is important to remember that after 1948, there were more types of purges, not only exclusively politically motivated ones. A ‘re-examination’ of the academic record of university students was another type of purge. This was a mass action that affected virtually all students in the country. Everything was done under the political supervision of the power structures of the time, which also controlled the life of individual faculties. Because of the ‘meticulous’ work of the politically vetted disciplinary committees and subcommittees, and because many students voluntarily left their studies, the numbers of expelled students were relatively high. In many cases, it was not the political views, but rather the failure to complete or fulfil study obligations that was the reason for termination (Zounek, 1996).

The university education gradually started to include the study of ‘social sciences’, and later Marxism-Leninism, which can be considered a key part of the ideological education of future teachers and of almost all university students, who could hardly avoid it.

Each graduate had their own cadre record and their job placement after graduation was decided by a committee (consisting of the dean, the head of the department, a KSČ member, and other representatives of various organizations). On the basis of the committee’s decision, each graduate received a ‘job offer’ and was obligated to start the designated job (school) no later than 1 month after graduation. This was the ‘placement of workers’ within which the graduates, in this case teachers, were not free to choose their employer. This measure was only abolished in the mid-1960s (Rychlík, 2020).

6 Socialism with a Human Face in Schools

A new round of changes in the education policy of the Czechoslovak state (i.e. the KSČ) occurred in the late 1950s. Nikita Khrushchev’s condemnation of the Stalinist regime and of Stalin’s cult of personality at the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1956 brought about a certain relaxation of measures in Czechoslovakia. In Czechoslovakia, the late 1950s and early 1960s were characterized by a gradual abandonment of the blind imitation of the Soviet Union and a gradual orientation towards the real needs of Czechoslovak society. The need for change was found to be particularly urgent in the economic activities of the state; over time, the needs manifested themselves in other areas of Czechoslovak society as well, and the school system was no exception. This did not mean an abandonment of communist ideals, as proven by the formulation of the mission of Czechoslovak schools in the new Education Act of 1960. According to the 1960 Act, schools were to ‘educate the youth and workers in the spirit of scientific worldview, Marxism-Leninism … enthusiastic builders of communism’ (Act No. 186, 1960). Similarly, the document The Concept of Nine-Year Primary School and its Curriculum (Pojetí …, 1960) stated that ‘from an early age, children should be taught to work and live in a communist manner and to strive to adopt the principles of communist morality in their nature’ (p. 4).

In practice, the unfortunate consequences of the 1953 Act became apparent quite early, and the continuation of this state of affairs was no longer sustainable. Thus, the 1960 Act once again extended the compulsory schooling to 9 years and the school system was expanded to include new types of schools (e.g. art schools, music schools, and dance schools). Studying while working was also considered to be of great importance, and secondary schools for workers were established. The 1960 Act almost seemed to foreshadow the liberal spirit of the 1960s, which was reflected in a much more favourable environment for school development.

During this period, theory and research of the pedagogical profession began to develop and attention was paid to the quality of education. In 1966, a new Act on university education was released (Act No. 19, 1966) that represented a rather liberal norm, on the basis of which traditional degrees for university graduates that had been abolished in the 1950s were returned and the universities were allowed to cooperate with (Western) foreign institutions. The reform of the lower stages of schools re-entered the discussion, and a reflection on the existing developments in the school system, cautiously acknowledging that many mistakes were made in the postwar period, was an important part of these debates.

The Akční program KSČ [Action Programme of the KSČ] of April 1968 formulated attempts to involve the wider public in the political issues of the state. According to the programme, even though the leading role in the administration of the state was still played by the KSČ, the KSČ newly wanted to advance its goals through persuasion rather than coercion. Science, art, and culture were no longer to be completely subordinated to the KSČ and the state. Marxism-Leninism was to lose its monopolistic ideological position in the life of the entire society and in the school system as well.

Archival documents provide an idea of the situation in primary education. According to the Regional Committee of the Communist Party of the South Moravian Region, in the mid-1960s, the regional leadership of the KSČ tended to process educational documents coming from the Central Committee of the KSČ with a delay of up to half a year, which was a previously completely unthinkable procedure.¹⁸ Witnesses also recalled that fewer and fewer documents from the higher authorities arrived at the schools. It can be assumed that regional and district school authorities ‘filtered’ documents and regulations coming from the central party authorities and they themselves decided which ones to send on to individual schools regardless of the orders from the superior (and party) authorities. This particular form of autonomy represents a completely new element in the totalitarian state and can be perceived as a specific manifestation of the Prague Spring. In the early 1960s, such a procedure would have been impossible (Zounek et al., 2018).

The cited archival source further revealed that these documents truly no longer emphasized the ideological side of upbringing and education: ‘Terms such as communist education or upbringing towards socialist patriotism and internationalism are omitted. Most of the space is devoted to the modernization of the process of teaching.’¹⁹ In view of the relaxation of the regime, the representatives of the Regional Committee of the KSČ were explicitly refraining from promoting communist ideology in upbringing and education; because of the same practices throughout the country, the situation was similar in other regions of Czechoslovakia. Under the influence of these events, the Ministry of Education and the regional authorities gradually began to essentially ignore the orders of the central (party) authorities, further relaxing the life in schools and the work of teachers.

During the spring of 1968, the influence of the KSČ in schools was practically completely suppressed. This is proven by an archival document: ‘During the spring of 1968, the neglect of the Party’s influence on cadre policy already manifested itself. The dislocation²⁰ neglected the ideological and political needs and job openings were to be filled only via a selection procedure without the influence of the party. Opponents to the politics of the time were being gradually eliminated from party activity.’²¹ Thus, the selection of teachers was no longer so strictly influenced by the KSČ, and teachers who did not want to be a part of the new trend, i.e. the supporters of the ‘old order’ or representatives of the pro-Soviet political line, left the schools.

According to witnesses, enthusiasm for the change in the social situation dominated some schools (Zounek et al., 2018). In the new freer atmosphere, the many years of uncritical orientation towards the Soviet Union were replaced by a return to the traditions of the first Czechoslovak Republic. There were even cases of open rejection of Soviet models. This was also reflected in educational and schooling activities. Ideological decorations disappeared from the schools and the lessons once again included previously taboo topics describing, for example, the prewar democratic republic. Sections that uncritically praised the developments of the Soviet Union or the positives of the communist regime were excised from many teaching materials.

Open enthusiasm for the relaxation of the regime did not prevail in all schools. It was not entirely unusual for school heads to forbid any discussion about the political situation in schools.

A different situation may have arisen in some rural schools. The distance from larger cities (the centres of reform) may have influenced the course of the Prague Spring at these schools to some extent, as one narrator’s recollections suggest: ‘Political reasons and such things … we didn’t know these. We were people from rural mudholes. Let them say whatever they will, that was a Prague thing’ (Zounek et al., 2018, p. 328). This may indicate a lesser known or perhaps less mentioned point. Indeed, the reforms of the time were not unambiguously supported across the country, and the situation in rural areas in particular may have been different from the generally communicated enthusiasm for reforms, even those of the school system. The very diverse experiences with the course of the Prague Spring in schools (and not only the rural ones) show that the different approaches may not have been just a matter of lack of information, but rather a belief that the former regime was the only right one, or that the Prague Spring reforms were subverting Czechoslovakia (Zounek et al., 2018).

In connection with the relaxation of the communist regime in Czechoslovakia during the 1960s, reformist communists tended to interpret religion more favourably than the official communist line wished. In general terms, this manifested itself in the preparation of a series of changes that raised many hopes among religious believers. The personnel changes in the management of the Office for Church Affairs, the amnesty for many members of the clergy, the cancellation of the internment of clergy, and the resumption of operation of the Greek Catholic Church or religious orders represented visible examples of this trend.

In the field of education, some of the existing regulations on religion lessons were relaxed. Applications for religion lessons were no longer accepted by school heads but by clergy. Religion lessons could now take place outside of school institutions. After a long period of time, religious teachers who had previously concealed their faith could attend churches without the threat of punishment.

7 Teachers and Schools After August 1968

Teachers themselves perceived the events of August 1968 in many different ways. Apart from the understandable disillusionment with the behaviour of the Soviet Union and other socialist countries, they mentioned fears about the uncertain future. In August 1968, teachers found themselves in the position of having to start preparing lessons in a completely unclear political situation (the school year started at the beginning of September, about 2 weeks after the invasion of the troops). They did not know whether they could continue the trend set by the events of the Prague Spring or if they should, for the sake of ‘safety’, re-adapt the teaching to the conditions prevailing before the Prague Spring. There were some completely purposeful changes of opinion, with supporters of the Prague Spring reforms quickly becoming its critics and turning into supporters of the incoming regime almost ‘overnight’. Such behaviour can be labelled in various ways, but it could have been a completely pragmatic strategy, or s ‘survival’ strategy leading to the preservation of the position of a school head or a teacher or other positions in the school system or school administration (Vaněk, 2007). Similar rapid changes of opinion were common in many other professions as people tried to avoid trouble or even recrimination. It was possible for a person to face trial and even imprisonment for attacking the principles of socialist schools or for spreading anti-Soviet propaganda (Zounek et al., 2017a).

In the following months, steps were taken under the supervision of the Soviet Union to gradually consolidate the regime (i.e., the return to the ‘normal state’ before the reforms began), which in fact meant silencing and removal of reform advocates, restoration of censorship, banning of many political movements, and renewed persecution of churches and religious societies. Together with these steps, the leadership of the KSČ was replaced and the member base was gradually ‘purged’. The ‘purge’ of the ‘right-wing elements or opportunists’, as the Communists denoted both the supporters of the reforms and the opposition, was a characteristic and completely fundamental phenomenon of the first years of normalization. Supporters of the Prague Spring and the authors and supporters of reforms were removed from the state sector and more visible professions. Even a publicly declared opposition to the invasion of the Warsaw Pact troops was a reason for expulsion from the party or forced resignation from one’s job. The teaching profession was considered a visible profession by the KSČ. It is therefore not surprising that ‘purges’ based on ‘interviews’ took place at schools.²²

The first personnel changes in the field of education began in the governing authorities at the level of regions and districts. Subsequently, school heads and teachers who had been members of the KSČ were vetted. ‘Non-party members’ and members of other political parties were vetted at the same time. For school heads, the evaluation of school inspectors was particularly important. However, even in contemporary documents of the KSČ, it can be seen that the information obtained in this way was often problematic. The following quote provides evidence: ‘It is a great hindrance, and it does not always inspire confidence in the eyes of school workers that in some districts, the evaluations are carried out ‘from the bottom up’, i.e., the school heads are evaluated by inspectors whose evaluation has not yet begun, and some of them will even be replaced in the school authorities after their work has been evaluated.’²³ The purges very quickly gained speed, leading to much confusion and ambiguity in the ranks of the ‘normalizers’. It is clear that this was a mishandled process at the beginning, but it was refined as the Communists gradually consolidated their power. As a result of systematic vetting, nearly 30% of school heads in the South Moravian Region were fired.²⁴

While the school heads were vetted by school inspectors, the teachers appeared before ‘interview committees’ consisting of three to four members. Usually, the previously ‘vetted’ school head of the school in question was the chair of the committee. The remaining members were representatives of various communist and school administration authorities. These were always individuals who had been approved by the relevant party authority or the ideological committee of the district committee of the KSČ.²⁵ In connection with the vetting, some witnesses recalled the composition of the vetting committees, which were dominated by older people. Importantly, the core of the opponents to the Prague Spring consisted mainly of older generations of KSČ members, around whom middle-aged pragmatists connected to the power apparatus assembled. In short, these were people who had lost their bearings in the freer environment of the Prague Spring. They missed the totalitarian clarity and harshness of the government (Bárta & Kural, 1993; Zounek et al., 2018).

The actual work of the vetting committees had several steps. First, the committee evaluated oral information from colleagues or the public about each teacher, then it moved to written information and records, such as information from the previous workplace, CVs and CV supplements, analyses of records from class visitations and records from educational activities, extracurricular activities, and any comments from party bodies. The vetting committees had a great variety of material at their disposal that became the basis for the actual interview with teachers. In some cases, the course of the vetting process could be quite heated and stressful, as some settling of accounts could occur. The opposite situation also occurred, during which efforts were made to ensure that the interview was conducted calmly and that no excesses arose. The school head’s position as chair of the committee was the key, as the school head could affect the final verdict of the committee greatly and thus intervene quite significantly in the personal and professional life of the vetted teacher (Zounek et al., 2017a).

At the end of the vetting, the committee formulated a conclusion: ‘keep at the current workplace’, ‘keep in the current position’, etc. The committee also formulated sanctions or punishments. Through the decisions of the committee, the regime could punish the teacher financially. Apart from the denial of homeroom teacher duties (which meant bonuses to regular salary), this variant of punishment included denial of raises or a prohibition to teach beyond the basic teaching duty (hours worked above this duty were paid extra).²⁶ In addition to these milder financial penalties, teachers could be transferred from their original workplace to another (more distant) school, often involving a difficult and time-consuming commute, also a type of punishment. In the most extreme cases, the teacher’s employment could be terminated.²⁷ The individual punishments could be combined in various ways: a teacher could be transferred to another school and be financially penalized. In addition to these punishments, awards and honorary titles from the Prague Spring period were also being taken away from their recipients. People who received awards between 1968 and 1969 were vetted particularly closely.²⁸

The termination of employment was a very sensitive and unpleasant matter even for the totalitarian regime. Teachers defended their rights in court²⁹ and the power apparatus had to prepare thoroughly for these cases. This suggests that the regime felt somewhat threatened, and moreover, that the nature of power was already different from the Stalinist period of the 1950s, in which human rights and the rule of law were often trampled upon.

8 Ideological Hardening After 1969: The Advent of ‘Normalization’ and Ideological Education

In parallel with the course of the ‘interviews’, the leaders of the KSČ began to prepare more organized interventions into the ideological ‘education’ of teachers. The primary attention was to be paid to the teachers and their activities, which were to be performed in the spirit of Marxist-Leninist ideas.³⁰ On the basis of these demands, a new (political-educational) education of teachers³¹ and school workers was planned. This education was to primarily include the problems of patriotism of the time (especially the solidarity with the socialist establishment of the Czechoslovak Republic), internationalism (orientated exclusively towards the Soviet Union and other socialist countries), and the leading role of the KSČ. Special attention was to be paid to Russian and social sciences teachers, who were to bear the bulk of the ideological work in teaching. In December 1969, the Ministry of Education even issued guidelines for teachers regarding the mandatory study of Marxism-Leninism, and, at the same time, identified the basic works of the classic authors of Marxism-Leninism that were to be studied.³²

The ideological consolidation concerned the education of teachers and it was also reflected in the everyday life of schools, especially in the teachers’ work in the classrooms. The teachers were to take special care to educate students in traditional friendship towards the Soviet Union.³³ The emphasis on these educational goals is not surprising. From the point of view of the ruling party, in the new political climate, it was an absolutely necessary measure to encourage students to foster warm relations with the Soviet Union, since these relations were severely damaged for many of their parents by the August invasion. For this purpose, teachers compiled educational plans and cooperated with various communist organizations such as the Pioneer Organization of the Socialist Youth Union.³⁴ The concrete results of their work were to manifested in the decoration of classrooms, the neatness of bulletin boards, and in participation in work brigades on the maintenance of school equipment, school playgrounds, and the schools’ surroundings, for example. Significant anniversaries and holidays were celebrated in appropriate measures for these educational goals.³⁵ Specific examples of a return to the period before the Prague Spring were that ideologically oriented bulletin boards were created and open discussions of the democratic ideals of the Czechoslovak First Republic were not allowed. In addition, the teachers remembered that the fulfilment rate of educational (ideological) goals was closely monitored by school inspectors. One teacher we spoke to during our previous research remembered: ‘They, I mean inspectors, when they were doing class visits, it’s true that they monitored those educational goals … we had to keep praising the Soviet Union and the army … they were all ears if you would say it or not’ (Zounek et al., 2018, p. 334). Although the teachers were strictly policed in this matter, these situations were not necessarily stressful for the teachers and the policing may have been merely formal.

The inspection of ‘proper’ educational activities in schools was not carried out exclusively by inspectors, but also by colleagues who did not hesitate to report ‘slips’ to their superiors. The consequences of such vetting among teachers thus led to a deterioration of the climate and collegial relations in schools. In particular, it affected trust between colleagues and what could and could not be said openly. The working climate was complicated in some schools in the early years of normalization and there was mutual distrust, uncertainty, and even suspicion (Zounek et al., 2018).

Criticisms reported by a colleague to superiors could represent a rather serious problem that could end in professional disaster and termination of employment. The reason for termination was recorded in the teacher’s personal file, which each teacher had to submit at the next workplace. A negative evaluation made any further work in education impossible. Some witnesses saw the evaluations in the personal files as a means of putting pressure on teachers, who thus had practically no choice: either they could remain a teacher, doing the work they liked and submitting to the regime, or they could leave the school system and with a bad evaluation (Zounek et al., 2017a).

The state’s church policy also returned to ‘normal’ after 1969. During the first years of normalization, the regime issued several legal standards with which it was returning to the original church laws adopted in the late 1940s and early 1950s. The transition back to the old ‘order’ was accompanied by personnel purges in the administration of the church departments of the ministry and in the ranks of bishops and monks.

The atheistic influence on young people was a KSČ priority until the mid-1980s. Universal education of young people on the basis of Marxist-Leninist foundations was its goal. In order to prevent the communist youth from being influenced by any church, the KSČ also tried to make maximum use of their free time. Atheist-oriented programs were broadcast on television (weekend programs for young people) and the organization of celebrations and tourist sports meetings on important church holidays were means of atheization.

At the same time, secret and—from the point of view of the state administration—illegal religion lessons were organized in private apartments, or these lessons were hidden under the activities of various leisure organizations or interest groups, such as the tourist club or the young firefighters’ club (Cuhra, 2006). Thus, some children received a religious education, but they were not allowed to talk about it publicly. The concealment of religious beliefs may have affected the mental and moral development of religious children. Many religious children were taught not to express their true beliefs in public during the communist period in order not to be penalized by the state apparatus. According to Gruner and Kluchert (2001), they developed a ‘double morality’ typical of life in totalitarian/authoritarian regimes (Kudláčová, 2023). Hlavinková (2007) even referred to this condition in a totalitarian society as ‘social schizophrenia’. A gradual change in this field was only noticeable in the later 1980s with the change in the geopolitical situation related to Mikhail Gorbachev’s perestroika.